I saw a game at Tower Records a while back that was supposed to use thought recognition. It was a skiing game, and I guess you were supposed to think "left", "right" or "jump"...
I think thought-recognition may be fun at the OS level.. For instance, while using windows, you think "I ougtta just format C:"... And, the thought-recognition just recognizes format C:
At least if M$ gets any tech support calls about that, they can honestly say "that's not a bug, it's a feature, dammit!"
I'm like that with the sun / pc keyboards... (for those who are unfamiliar, sun keyboards have control / caps lock switched relative to the PC locations, and esc where the tilde is on a pc keyboard)
Whenever I'm at work and switch to a PC, I start typing as if I'm on a sun keyboard. And people look at me like an idiot when I start typing the ` key at vi..;) Outside of work, I always revert back to PC, however.
I think the 1-2% commercial software tax is a terrible idea. Taxes are supposed to be a way for the gov't to raise funds for itself, not as another tool to push people around.
Perhaps you should put a little (US) next to liberal, too.
In the US, it has come to mean dogmatic moral relativist (which itself sounds pretty silly, which explains quite a bit), in Europe it's closer to what you're calling "anarchist / libertarian socialist"
And, "Libertarian (US) / anarcho-capitalist" don't really have anything to do with each other unless you're Ayn Rand. The idea of anarchy / capitalism is a bit of an oxymoron. In order to have capital, the establishment of what capital is (Laws pertaining to property rights) are required. And, in order to maintain individual liberty, it needs to be protected.
I think they should draw a box:
<-- (economic freedom) 2 1
3
5 4 (social freedom) -->
6 Oustide the box 7 I'm a bitter little ball of flaming and whining
2 is economic freedom, 4 is social freedom, 5 is no freedom, 1 is both economic freedom and social freedom, 3 is centrist (let's all just compromise!!), 6 is anarchist (laws are evil, leave me alone), 7 is self-explanatory.:)
Click on which most closely matches.
(you'll have to use a bit of imagination on the box part.. I tried to draw one, but it just didn't want to be formatted nicely.)
He twists the definition of "freedom" to mean that "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" just like Karl Marx.
His attitude is "power to the proletariat" as long as he is the Premier.
Nowhere in his writings or interviews have I seen the comment that everyone should be forced to code (or write documentation, or spout propaganda) as much as they are able. Cooperating for free does not make communism.
When early settler farmers in the US got together and built barns, they did not have a MacroBarn Corporation. Perhaps if Bill Gates had been around, he would have been able to pull something off where he built all the barns, had it made illegal to modify them, or to share the design with a neighbor who wanted to build his own.
Instead, they, the farmers, worked together to help make their own. This from what has been hailed as the Free world. The anti-communism. Notice that no one was forced to help, and no one was forced to give up anything to use the Barn for as long as it stood upright.
Regarding the "personal glory" aspect, RMS has gone to *great* lengths to codify his philosophies along with detailed explanations of *why* he believed in them.
Contrast this to ESR, who writes eloquently, but has a wheeling-dealing tendency.. And when criticized, instead of fighting reason with reason, talks about resigning, and calls into question the public discussion of the matters at hand. This isn't meant as an attack on ESR, but to show a concrete example of how RMS has gone to lengths to document what his ideals, instead of "The rules today are what I say they are"
If RMS were truly interested in free software and not in shameless self-promotion, he'd be less interested in what it's called, who wrote it and who gets credit for it than whether or not it's free software.
If Studmonkey were truly interested in RMS's intentions, he would notice that in order for large free software projects to be self-sustaining, they need users, developers, and the guarantee that the code will stay free. GNU thus far has been demonstrably successful at this.. but in order to remain so it needs to be noticed, not just pushed under an opaque layer of freedom-subtracting add-ons that do their best to make people never realize tha freedom is possible.
RMS is doing his best to keep momentum going in the free direction by keeping attention focused on it. I do agree with you that that saying "G-noo slash Linux" is silly, and generally not worth the all the fuss it has been stirring up. I consider it taken somewhat in desperation over the turn things have taken lately, and even as such, not something that even comes close to cancelling out the huge benefits GNU has bestowed upon us. And, the price of freedom *is* eternal vigilance...
I think the "We include credit for..." postings that had Linux implicity including credit for GNU have the right idea. Then you can see that as the boiler-plate prepended to every single intro article "The free unix-like operating system written by a college student in finland... In order to work its magic, it uses the potent reagents of GNU, XFree86, and <insert your project of great importance here>"
(And to his credit, Linux was named after Linus, not by him)
In the spirit of April 1st questioning everything... Are you sure Linux isn't what he had in mind all along? The name Freax brings to mind the product naming meeting in Dilbert's tv launch. "No, your choices are always real.. ";)
It's amusing to compare tip-offs that this wasn't actually Katz..;) For me, it was the c-kermit reference.
On a side note, imagine the stock prices flying and stock market fluctations if yahoo's little stock board did something like this. "Wal-Mart has decided to fund BeOS! Starting next year, their outlets will no longer carry any microsoft operating system products, and Be developers will have free drinks & snacks in the employee breakroom"
OTOH, there are those who argue that the government's actions interfere with the "natural order of things" in free markets.
Those who argue that usually also argue that those participating in those markets not engage in fraudulent activities and theft. If someone is a repeat criminal in real life, they go to prison for good in a lot of places. What about the corporation as an individual? Perhaps the monopoly hearings can be seen as their 3 strikes, you're out type deal. Of course, in Microsoft's case, it has been a few more than 3.;)
So, is it time to liquidate all Microsoft assets to the highest non-ms-involved bidders?
This delves too much into partisan political stuff for my tastes... "Why the Government Withdrew From Defense of Open Stanards" mentions the Republicans slashing the budgets of gov't programs to encourage local and community development "even as local need for the funds exploded with the expansion of the Net".
Unfortunately, it ignores that the government handing out money for high-bandwidth lines doesn't prevent anyone from using standard-breaking protocols over those same lines. Even if the money were spent on unix web servers and some HTML guys, I think the post-critical mass occurrence of corporations catching onto the hype wave and creating non-standard proprietary content delivery methods would have been the same.
Whenever government is involved with something high profile, it ends up getting politicized. When the press starts yowling, broad feel-good but ineffective and usually harmful things end up happening... Witness CDA, CDA II, the clipper chip, etc.
Of course, the government demanding openness in what they use is obviously good. But the people surrendering control to the federal government as a big, happy defender against evil and technical guide is *really* naive. The work far thus with the net may have been quite beneficial, but that was before AOL got their link, the press was all over it, and every huckster in sight started scrambling to show their wisdom on "how to deal with" the internet.
Just because you're not logging your MUD's conversations doesn't mean that no one is. There are these things called sniffers, y'see....;)
Of course, I agree with you about the cop's statements "All this stuff is logged, and I have access to the logs!! And if I find out you even hugged him...". That kind of statement is just a scare tactic toward his victim.
I think the sooner we realize that cops are of no real benefit for protecting individuals and take it upon ourselves, the better. I, too, speak from experience.
And what if you're one of those two guys, and you have a really high quality idea you want to implement...
If you're wanting to make a proprietary implementation, you rewrite those 2 routines, or you use the BSD-licensed equivalent. Expecting the author(s) of the GPL library to let you make their code proprietary is a bit hypocritical if you're expecting people to not share your proprietary stuff.
I personally think that the BSD and GNU licences and systems complement each other well. GNU/GPL makes sure that we continue to have free systems, BSD lets us have a free base from which to code for vertical markets, etc. If either one of them "compromised", I think the benefits inherent in each would be lost.
The future - Let the non-coders have a voice too.
on
ESR Wants to Retire
·
· Score: 2
I think that the person who would take ESR's job be a "top notch coder" is important. The reasons are that the person:
* should be respected by those they're advocating
* should have a proven track record of believing in the principles they represent, and not just be in it for the fame
* should be able to answer specific questions if visiting a company they're spreading the gospel to with authority (eg., "In my experience with that..." means more than "I'm here to promote this at all costs, regardless if it would benefit you" to the person you're speaking to)
* needs to understand the underlying concepts of software development, because open source [tm] is about software development, after all..
Beyond that, I think the programmer has more personal interest in the matters (for instance, when discussing licenses, the programmer can consider "Would I actually want go for this as a developer, or is this just hype").. Also, as a proven achiever, they are less likely to whisper to the corporate head "You can probably get away with making this less free, but you didn't hear it from me...", in order to show "fruits" of their labors.
By no means do I think only coders should be able to advocate the concept, however. I agree non-programmers can be great at reprsenting us. The problem is, if they get elevated too far, what keeps them honest? If you're highly visible, you *will* get flamed. For instance, RMS is not going to go away, and, neither are his followers, so I think we can count on anyone out making compromises in the name of Open Source [tm] will find an endless stream of opposition. I think it's far too likely for someone with no vested interest as developers to turn around spout dirty laundry over the whole thing. And, if you've got a way with words and are photogenic, a lot of people are going to listen.;)
At 56k? Most of us don't have access to our school's network, thank you.
I have (and continue to) install debian over 28.8, and have even had the occasion to do it at 14.4..:) Debian includes around 1500 packages in its base, and over 2000 if you include the non-free and contrib packages available. Even the base takes up more than a single CD. Of course, it's organized so that you individually pick out packages to install (or choose what the function of the system will be if you're a newbie or don't want to spend an hour picking stuff out...), and only download the small subset of that - the packages that you'll actually want/need.;)
Bottom line: what I consider a comfortable system (which includes lots of libraries and their headers), takes about 12-14 hours to download... That's only about 4-6 hours more than most people sleep a night. So, go watch a movie, get some sleep, have breakfast and a shower, then wake up to your new system.:)
Put in perhaps its most simple terms, when it comes to software, why is it reasonable to expect something (and in some cases, somethng very significant) for nothing?
You should realize that RMS's philosophy isn't anti-commercial, it's pro-freedom. He doesn't say programmers should not be paid for their work. It's the model that is currently used to accomplish that he objects to.
The problem wtih proprietary software is the government uses FORCE against people who share that software. In most cases, the justification of government force against individuals is that the individual has directly violated the rights of another individual.
If you share a copy of a program, the original author doesn't lose his copy. And, if you share a copy, you help a friend.
A possible business model I can think for free software to work in the Real World [tm], is to get people to bid on software. For instance, set up a system such that people make binding contracts that if X feature is added or X program is written, they will send the company Y amount of dollars.
I think it's worked that way in the fashion industry for years, and you don't see the clothing designers starving.;) Of course, they work through middle-men and you pay for an actual physical product (cost of raw materials adjusted, adjusted by the market-defined value). But - other companies can copy their styles (and not draw such a premium).. Like how a redhat CD is around $40 from redhat, but it's $2 from cheapbytes. Note that Redhat sports significant profits in despite the cost difference.
I don't talk funny, you leesen funny. I didn't mistake free (beer) for free (dom).. Notice the subtle hints in my original post such as "subtract your freedom".. and "a perverted form of shareware" Granted, shareware doesn't release source, that's why it's different. Twisted. Perverted into a new form that gives the illusion of freedom while leaving what can be advertised as "the good part" non-free.
This "free but with proprietary pieces" strikes me as a perverted form of shareware. i.e., release the demo version as free software, but to *really* get its potential, subtract your freedom.
I think this is a bit dodgy wrt to the potential of the free parts under the "official" tree, too, because 100's of developers can easily outpace 1 or a few developers, who may not want to merge in code that improves the free version, but breaks their proprietary parts. At least forks are still permitted, but aren't necessarily the ideal situation to be in..
I think this was a great strategic move on redhat's part.. In a single bound, they've kept toward their stance on Open Source[tm] software, and diffused one of the biggest rough spots that would push newbies toward Bero/Mandrake or SuSE.
Perhaps this will foster something like a compatiblity layer between gnome/kde apps, too.
All this hiring reminds me of different countries' royal families intermarrying in feudal europe, btw..;)
Read the fucking license. Apple simply whats to be notified of changes. You can modify the code and redistribute it all you want. Just don't put in infringeable code or you loose the license on the infringeable code. You don't break a patent, you have NO problem.
I just read the license, and I stand corrected about the legality of forking your own branch. I actually did read it yesterday, but for some reason it got classified under "Like QT pre 2.0" in my head. (oops)..
In any case, the infringement section, as I interpret it, would allow Apple to kill off any real competitors using their code relatively easily.. All they would have to do is: a) get/wait for someone to claim an infringement by Apple, b) at their sole discretion and option, choose that forcing everyone to stop using their code is only option to remedy the situation. Given what they did with Apple clone hardware, and with their suit against microsoft over GUI look and feel, I wouldn't be too surprised at all if that happened.
Of course, the target audience of Apple products may be such that they wouldn't be too interested in all of this anyway (After all, they've been using the stuff before Apple released any source)... But, confusing that type of license with real free licenses *is* an issue if it starts to spill over into areas where we *are* interested.
Sound paranoid? Section 9.1 does to me. To continue the MacOS vs Linux kernel comparision, if part of the kernel is found to infringe on a license, Linus is told to change what he distributes. If Joe Linux Distro maintainer uses a copy that's in violation, doesn't Joe Linux Distro maintainer become the one responsible for infringement at that point (and not Linus?) Maybe there's something here that I'm missing. If so, I'd appreciate someone point it out.
Who actually cares about what Debian and GNU have to say...
I do, and I'm pretty sure anyone who contributes to GNU and Debian does. They are two of the only organizations who have steadfastly defended and been propoents of Free Software.
They had to cancel the clones licenses cause they were just bloodsuckers! And beleive me they were...
Were the clones "bloodsuckers" or "more competitive in the market"? I honestly don't know, but suspect the latter given what I saw as an apple user in the past. For instance, when I had an Apple ][, all the best peripherals were made by third parties. Applied Engineering comes to mind.. When apple's RAM cards maxed out at 4mb of RAM, AE's could do 8mb, etc.
I may be wrong, but as far as I've read, Linus yays or nays code to go into the kernel. Is he a dictator? mozilla.org approves or disapproves code which remains in their source.
Linus has control over what goes into the kernel *he* distributes... That's big distinction between how Linus and Apple run their shows. With the kernel being GPL, anyone can take it and make their own as long as they share the source, too. And, as you can see by the existence of redhat, caldera, etc, other people can sell it, too.:)
11. Choose your grandparents wisely. (i.e., be born into wealth)
12. Lie, Lie, Lie! (Most people then become so used to the lies that they stop even trying to question them, and the 2nd, 3rd and 4th lie divert attention from the 1st)
According to the experts I heard, Linux is free - except most people pay about $50 for it.
I saw this on lwn.net last week, and sent the author a nice note explaining Freedom vs. (cost-)free.. "People say the United States is free - except most people pay about $80-200k for their houses"
Should you let your in-house developers make changes to the source code? (Probably not, unless you love version-control hell.)
And, he has quite the consumer mentality. Every time I've sent a patch upstream, the author has incorporated it into the next version...
Slashdot Mirror
I saw a game at Tower Records a while back that was supposed to use thought recognition. It was a skiing game, and I guess you were supposed to think "left", "right" or "jump" ...
... And, the thought-recognition just recognizes format C:
I think thought-recognition may be fun at the OS level.. For instance, while using windows, you think "I ougtta just format C:"
At least if M$ gets any tech support calls about that, they can honestly say "that's not a bug, it's a feature, dammit!"
According to = in lynx:
Linkname: Salon.com
URL: http://www.salon.com/
Charset: iso-8859-1 (assumed)
Server: Apache/1.3.3 (Unix) mod_oas/4.63
I'm like that with the sun / pc keyboards... (for those who are unfamiliar, sun keyboards have control / caps lock switched relative to the PC locations, and esc where the tilde is on a pc keyboard)
;) Outside of work, I always revert back to PC, however.
Whenever I'm at work and switch to a PC, I start typing as if I'm on a sun keyboard. And people look at me like an idiot when I start typing the ` key at vi..
I think the 1-2% commercial software tax is a terrible idea. Taxes are supposed to be a way for the gov't to raise funds for itself, not as another tool to push people around.
Perhaps you should put a little (US) next to liberal, too.
:)
In the US, it has come to mean dogmatic moral relativist (which itself sounds pretty silly, which explains quite a bit), in Europe it's closer to what you're calling "anarchist / libertarian socialist"
And, "Libertarian (US) / anarcho-capitalist" don't really have anything to do with each other unless you're Ayn Rand. The idea of anarchy / capitalism is a bit of an oxymoron. In order to have capital, the establishment of what capital is (Laws pertaining to property rights) are required. And, in order to maintain individual liberty, it needs to be protected.
I think they should draw a box:
<-- (economic freedom)
2 1
3
5 4
(social freedom) -->
6 Oustide the box
7 I'm a bitter little ball of flaming and whining
2 is economic freedom,
4 is social freedom,
5 is no freedom,
1 is both economic freedom and social freedom,
3 is centrist (let's all just compromise!!),
6 is anarchist (laws are evil, leave me alone),
7 is self-explanatory.
Click on which most closely matches.
(you'll have to use a bit of imagination on the box part.. I tried to draw one, but it just didn't want to be formatted nicely.)
When early settler farmers in the US got together and built barns, they did not have a MacroBarn Corporation. Perhaps if Bill Gates had been around, he would have been able to pull something off where he built all the barns, had it made illegal to modify them, or to share the design with a neighbor who wanted to build his own.
Instead, they, the farmers, worked together to help make their own. This from what has been hailed as the Free world. The anti-communism. Notice that no one was forced to help, and no one was forced to give up anything to use the Barn for as long as it stood upright.
Regarding the "personal glory" aspect, RMS has gone to *great* lengths to codify his philosophies along with detailed explanations of *why* he believed in them.
Contrast this to ESR, who writes eloquently, but has a wheeling-dealing tendency.. And when criticized, instead of fighting reason with reason, talks about resigning, and calls into question the public discussion of the matters at hand. This isn't meant as an attack on ESR, but to show a concrete example of how RMS has gone to lengths to document what his ideals, instead of "The rules today are what I say they are"
RMS is doing his best to keep momentum going in the free direction by keeping attention focused on it. I do agree with you that that saying "G-noo slash Linux" is silly, and generally not worth the all the fuss it has been stirring up. I consider it taken somewhat in desperation over the turn things have taken lately, and even as such, not something that even comes close to cancelling out the huge benefits GNU has bestowed upon us. And, the price of freedom *is* eternal vigilance...
I think the "We include credit for ..." postings that had Linux implicity including credit for GNU have the right idea. Then you can see that as the boiler-plate prepended to every single intro article "The free unix-like operating system written by a college student in finland ... In order to work its magic, it uses the potent reagents of GNU, XFree86, and <insert your project of great importance here>"
It's amusing to compare tip-offs that this wasn't actually Katz.. ;) For me, it was the c-kermit reference.
On a side note, imagine the stock prices flying and stock market fluctations if yahoo's little stock board did something like this. "Wal-Mart has decided to fund BeOS! Starting next year, their outlets will no longer carry any microsoft operating system products, and Be developers will have free drinks & snacks in the employee breakroom"
From where I sit, it says 5:00pm MST.. Since MST is GMT-7, I'm guessing it was posted by cron at 12:00AM GMT. ;)
So, is it time to liquidate all Microsoft assets to the highest non-ms-involved bidders?
This delves too much into partisan political stuff for my tastes... "Why the Government Withdrew From Defense of Open Stanards" mentions the Republicans slashing the budgets of gov't programs to encourage local and community development "even as local need for the funds exploded with the expansion of the Net".
Unfortunately, it ignores that the government handing out money for high-bandwidth lines doesn't prevent anyone from using standard-breaking protocols over those same lines. Even if the money were spent on unix web servers and some HTML guys, I think the post-critical mass occurrence of corporations catching onto the hype wave and creating non-standard proprietary content delivery methods would have been the same.
Whenever government is involved with something high profile, it ends up getting politicized. When the press starts yowling, broad feel-good but ineffective and usually harmful things end up happening... Witness CDA, CDA II, the clipper chip, etc.
Of course, the government demanding openness in what they use is obviously good. But the people surrendering control to the federal government as a big, happy defender against evil and technical guide is *really* naive. The work far thus with the net may have been quite beneficial, but that was before AOL got their link, the press was all over it, and every huckster in sight started scrambling to show their wisdom on "how to deal with" the internet.
Just because you're not logging your MUD's conversations doesn't mean that no one is. There are these things called sniffers, y'see.... ;)
...". That kind of statement is just a scare tactic toward his victim.
Of course, I agree with you about the cop's statements "All this stuff is logged, and I have access to the logs!! And if I find out you even hugged him
I think the sooner we realize that cops are of no real benefit for protecting individuals and take it upon ourselves, the better. I, too, speak from experience.
If you're wanting to make a proprietary implementation, you rewrite those 2 routines, or you use the BSD-licensed equivalent. Expecting the author(s) of the GPL library to let you make their code proprietary is a bit hypocritical if you're expecting people to not share your proprietary stuff.
I personally think that the BSD and GNU licences and systems complement each other well. GNU/GPL makes sure that we continue to have free systems, BSD lets us have a free base from which to code for vertical markets, etc. If either one of them "compromised", I think the benefits inherent in each would be lost.
I think that the person who would take ESR's job be a "top notch coder" is important. The reasons are that the person:
;)
* should be respected by those they're advocating
* should have a proven track record of believing in the principles they represent, and not just be in it for the fame
* should be able to answer specific questions if visiting a company they're spreading the gospel to with authority (eg., "In my experience with that..." means more than "I'm here to promote this at all costs, regardless if it would benefit you" to the person you're speaking to)
* needs to understand the underlying concepts of software development, because open source [tm] is about software development, after all..
Beyond that, I think the programmer has more personal interest in the matters (for instance, when discussing licenses, the programmer can consider "Would I actually want go for this as a developer, or is this just hype").. Also, as a proven achiever, they are less likely to whisper to the corporate head "You can probably get away with making this less free, but you didn't hear it from me...", in order to show "fruits" of their labors.
By no means do I think only coders should be able to advocate the concept, however. I agree non-programmers can be great at reprsenting us. The problem is, if they get elevated too far, what keeps them honest? If you're highly visible, you *will* get flamed. For instance, RMS is not going to go away, and, neither are his followers, so I think we can count on anyone out making compromises in the name of Open Source [tm] will find an endless stream of opposition. I think it's far too likely for someone with no vested interest as developers to turn around spout dirty laundry over the whole thing. And, if you've got a way with words and are photogenic, a lot of people are going to listen.
Bottom line: what I consider a comfortable system (which includes lots of libraries and their headers), takes about 12-14 hours to download... That's only about 4-6 hours more than most people sleep a night. So, go watch a movie, get some sleep, have breakfast and a shower, then wake up to your new system.
The problem wtih proprietary software is the government uses FORCE against people who share that software. In most cases, the justification of government force against individuals is that the individual has directly violated the rights of another individual.
If you share a copy of a program, the original author doesn't lose his copy. And, if you share a copy, you help a friend.
A possible business model I can think for free software to work in the Real World [tm], is to get people to bid on software. For instance, set up a system such that people make binding contracts that if X feature is added or X program is written, they will send the company Y amount of dollars.
I think it's worked that way in the fashion industry for years, and you don't see the clothing designers starving.
I don't talk funny, you leesen funny. I didn't mistake free (beer) for free (dom) .. Notice the subtle hints in my original post such as "subtract your freedom" .. and "a perverted form of shareware" Granted, shareware doesn't release source, that's why it's different. Twisted. Perverted into a new form that gives the illusion of freedom while leaving what can be advertised as "the good part" non-free.
This "free but with proprietary pieces" strikes me as a perverted form of shareware. i.e., release the demo version as free software, but to *really* get its potential, subtract your freedom.
I think this is a bit dodgy wrt to the potential of the free parts under the "official" tree, too, because 100's of developers can easily outpace 1 or a few developers, who may not want to merge in code that improves the free version, but breaks their proprietary parts. At least forks are still permitted, but aren't necessarily the ideal situation to be in..
I think this was a great strategic move on redhat's part.. In a single bound, they've kept toward their stance on Open Source[tm] software, and diffused one of the biggest rough spots that would push newbies toward Bero/Mandrake or SuSE.
;)
Perhaps this will foster something like a compatiblity layer between gnome/kde apps, too.
All this hiring reminds me of different countries' royal families intermarrying in feudal europe, btw..
In any case, the infringement section, as I interpret it, would allow Apple to kill off any real competitors using their code relatively easily.. All they would have to do is: a) get/wait for someone to claim an infringement by Apple, b) at their sole discretion and option, choose that forcing everyone to stop using their code is only option to remedy the situation. Given what they did with Apple clone hardware, and with their suit against microsoft over GUI look and feel, I wouldn't be too surprised at all if that happened.
Of course, the target audience of Apple products may be such that they wouldn't be too interested in all of this anyway (After all, they've been using the stuff before Apple released any source)... But, confusing that type of license with real free licenses *is* an issue if it starts to spill over into areas where we *are* interested.
Sound paranoid? Section 9.1 does to me. To continue the MacOS vs Linux kernel comparision, if part of the kernel is found to infringe on a license, Linus is told to change what he distributes. If Joe Linux Distro maintainer uses a copy that's in violation, doesn't Joe Linux Distro maintainer become the one responsible for infringement at that point (and not Linus?) Maybe there's something here that I'm missing. If so, I'd appreciate someone point it out.
Were the clones "bloodsuckers" or "more competitive in the market"? I honestly don't know, but suspect the latter given what I saw as an apple user in the past. For instance, when I had an Apple ][, all the best peripherals were made by third parties. Applied Engineering comes to mind.. When apple's RAM cards maxed out at 4mb of RAM, AE's could do 8mb, etc.
11. Choose your grandparents wisely. (i.e., be born into wealth)
12. Lie, Lie, Lie! (Most people then become so used to the lies that they stop even trying to question them, and the 2nd, 3rd and 4th lie divert attention from the 1st)
And, he has quite the consumer mentality. Every time I've sent a patch upstream, the author has incorporated it into the next version...